“NFAC”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144BSection 144B48,618 judgments

The decision most relied on for NFAC is Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (174 Taxmann.com 1203), cited in 43 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on NFAC

Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

174 Taxmann.com 1203 · 2025 · High Court

citing judgments

Where the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) and the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) have concurrent jurisdiction, a notice issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is valid, provided no prejudice is caused to the assessee.

Aggarwal v. NFAC

127 Taxmann.com 637 · High Court

citing judgments

Denying a personal hearing when specifically requested, especially after a search and during a pandemic, violates the principles of natural justice. The assessment and appellate proceedings themselves were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hire Purchase (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC

128 Taxmann.com 190 · High Court

citing judgments

Failure to grant a personal hearing to an assessee when income is likely to be varied based on submitted evidence violates the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment order invalid.

Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC

142 Taxmann.com 38 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

When initiating penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) must specify the limb of the charge, indicating whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This requirement is essential for valid penalty proceedings.

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi v. CIT (Appeals) NFAC

145 Taxmann.com 235 · 2022 · ITAT

citing judgments

The ITAT held that failure to file Form 67 by the due date for filing the return of income is not fatal to the claim for foreign tax credit. The appellate authority can condone the delay in filing Form 67.

Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC

152 Taxmann.com 382 · 2023 · ITAT

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting or mis-reporting of income cannot be sustained if additions are made under Section 56(2)(x) and the penalty notice fails to specify the limb under which proceedings are initiated.

Sanjay Gupta v. CIT

366 ITR 18 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

When the quantum of income is remanded to the Assessing Officer, the issue of penalty for undisclosed income should also be remanded to the Assessing Officer.

Saltwater Studio LLP v. NFAC

157 Taxmann.com 749 · 2023 · Reported

citing judgments

A penalty levied for misreporting under section 270A is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer fails to establish how the assessee's case falls within the specific instances of misreporting mentioned in section 270A(9). This requires an application of mind and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Judgments citing NFAC

Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Incometax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2226/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2226, 2227 & 2228/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Vs. Ward 2(1), Credit Society Limited, Erode Panakkahally Post, Thalavady Taluk, Erode – 638 461 Pan: Aacaa 1566A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271A

PRESIDENT: These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, all dated 27.06.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, ITA No.2226 to 2228/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant

Suryan Namboothiry, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Nungambakkam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2019/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Adivarahan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

RAGHUNATHA, AM: These appeals by the assessee are filed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide orders dated 20.02.2024 and 24.07.2024 for 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 respectively. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common ... A.Y.2018-19. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2018-19. 5. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided three opportunities each for both the appeals for the assessee to appear for hearings

Suryan Namboothiry, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Nungambakkam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2018/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Adivarahan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

Makaran Foundry Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2017/CHNY/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Uttamchand Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148

RAGHUNATHA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is filed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order dated 29.03.2025 for A.Y.2004-05. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 51 days in appeal filed ... taxable income of Rs.52,74,260/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. :-3-: ITA. No.:2017/Chny/2025 5. At the outset, we observed that the Ld.CIT(A) has provided ten opportunities to the assessee to appear

Karunakaran Srinivasan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-17(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1995/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Dharshan Bothra, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [herein after “ld. CIT(A)] dated 14.06.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

Annai Kanthammal Ramachandran Educational and Charitable Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1987/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

impugned notice u/s.148 dated 27.03.2023 have been issued by the Income Tax officer, Exemptions Ward , Salem [JAO] and not by the NFAC which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. We find that the order under Clause (d) to Section 148A of the Act and the notice u/s.148 ... held in favour of the assessee and therefore, we are inclined not to go into the merits of the addition made by the NFAC. 13. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” 21. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court

Subban Selvam, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 1981/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 144Section 147Section 148

RAGHUNATHA, AM : 1. This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, (in short Id. CIT(A)) for the assessment year 2010-11, vide order dated 30.12.2023. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay ... Rs.45,75,242/-. :-3-: ITA. No:1981/Chny/2025 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Id.CIT(A), NFAC on 31.01.2019. 5. At the outset, we observed that Id.CIT(A) has provided five opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed

Sarveswaran Deepa, Kanchipuram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 22(6), Tambaram

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1973/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

RAGHUNATHA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “Id.CIT(A)”], arising from the penalty order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1878/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

STUN areas sifMear, ‘Ay earatio, teas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI aft sitet sitet &, Soeaer Us

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1877/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1875/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1872, 1873, 1875, 1877 & 1878/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., 500, Pantheaon Road, Egmore S.O., Chennai - 600 008. [Pan: Aaact-3408-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Five Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Id.Cit(A)”]. The Impugned Orders Of The Id.Cit(A) Arise Out Of The Assessment Orders Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], In Respect Of The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18. The Particulars Of The Respective Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Set Out Hereinbelow:- S. No

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1873/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

STUN areas sifMear, ‘Ay earatio, teas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI aft sitet sitet &, Soeaer Us

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1872/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

STUN areas sifMear, ‘Ay earatio, teas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI aft sitet sitet &, Soeaer Us

Thattil Mapranath Ouseph Ply, Rep. by Jaya Ply, Legal Heri, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1854/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 127Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [herein after “ld. CIT(A)] dated 12.06.2025 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

Abdulrasheed Arachamveettil, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps Thrissur, Trichy

In the result, the ibid appeal filed by the assessee is held to be infructuous and allowed to be withdrawn

ITA 1409/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.Gautam S. Mukundan

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Vadivel Chandran, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1695/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Shri Vadivel Chandran (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2021-22 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] dated 18.10.2024 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Kalyan, Kalyan vs. Samrat Madhav Paikrao, Shahpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4759/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shriram Bajaj, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are preferred against the order dated 29/05/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)’], pertaining to AY 2018-19. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the revenue is that

Vishnukumar Cokalchand Gupta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4578/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik

Saktijit Dey, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 29.05.2025, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), Delhi pertaining to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. The solitary dispute in the appeal relates to disallowance of indexed cost of improvement while computing

JCIT(in-Situ), Central Circle-2, Patna vs. Rakesh Kumar, Bihta

Appeal is dismissed as tax effect is below the prescribed limit

ITA 189/PAT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.189/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Jcit, Central Circle, Patna ……………..………. …………………....Appellant Vs. Rakesh Kumar……........…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Village- Amhara, Po Bihta, Patna, Pin-801118. Bihar.. [Pan: Airpk7698D] Appearances By: Shri Ashish Kr. Agarwal, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Cit-Dr , Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.01.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Relating To The Assessment Year 2021–22. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Ar Stated That The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue Needs To Be Dismissed Since The Tax Effect Involved In The Appeal Is Below The Monetary Limit As Per Circular No.9/2024 Dated 17.09.2024 Issued By Cbdt. He Has Submitted The Total Tax Effect On The Deletion Of Rs.65,00,000/- Assailed In The Present Appeal Is As Under: Particular Amount Deletion By Cit(A) 65,00,000/- Tax @ 60% U/S 115Bbe 39,00,000

Section 115B

ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated 30.01.2025 of the learned CIT(A), NFAC relating to the assessment year 2021–22. 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR stated that the instant appeal filed by the revenue

Balasaheb Bhagwat Horane, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1802/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1802/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Balasaheb Bhagwat Horane, V The Income Tax Officer, C/O. Kapil Horane, S Ward-2, Pandharpur. Chandrabhaga Ghat, Pandharpur, Solapur-413304. Pan: Aadph0707N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandbhor – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 30.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.12.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

22/10/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal(NFAC) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2013-14 dated 30.06.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order under section